Mukhriz resigns today and Kedah gets a new MB tomorrow

Mukriz today announced his resignation from the post of MB of Kedah. He did so with all guns blazing:

Umno weakest under Najib, says Mukhriz

I think we have yet to see the real Mukhriz who I am sure would rebound from this small setback, he has a family pedigree to carry you know. I do hope that he did not become quiet like TS Muhyiddin after he lost his DPM post.

Anyway:

tak usah berduka jika mb turun..mrk org politik patut terima turun naik sebagai asam garam org berpolitik. klu tak leh terima jgn berpolitik

— eddydaud. (@eddydaud) February 3, 2016

read also:

Kesan Pecah-Belah Kepada Politik Kedah

MUKHRIZ BARU GRADUATE UNIVERSITI POLITIK

Jom cari dan baca buku Dr. M. Bakri Musa

'Malaysian leaders have been intentionally entrapping the minds of Malays as a means to retain their power and positions'

'This ability to look beyond race would help draw the Malays out of their shells'

Dr. M. Bakri Musa

Read more about the book here:

Freedom, US-based surgeon’s prescription for overcoming Malay problems 

Now pay attention

https://t.co/jAovoTHmHj kamu nampak tak 2 kertas A4 warna-warni ini, now pay attention :)) pic.twitter.com/fu8syb9oIu

— eddydaud. (@eddydaud) January 29, 2016

Please read:

Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik can indeed win against Najib Razak

Biar orang yang bijaksana berbicara

Biar orang yg bijaksana berbicara:

7 reasons to evaluate AG’s decision

YAYASAN 1Malaysia (Y1M) supports wholeheartedly the decision of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to refer the attorney-general's directive to close three investigative files involving Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak to its Operational Evaluation Panel (PPO). It is within the PPO's ambit of authority to evaluate the AG's decision.

There are at least seven reasons why the PPO should undertake this task.

► ONE, there are contradictory views on the authenticity of the donation allegedly made by the late Saudi ruler, King Abdullah, to Najib in March-April 2013. According to the BBC, an unnamed Saudi source has confirmed the deposition of US$681 million from the Saudi monarch into Najib's personal account.

A report in the Wall Street Journal however has cast doubts on the claim. It says that "A Saudi government official while declining to comment specifically on the prosecutor's statement said that the Saudi ministries of foreign affairs and finance had no information about such a gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented". The truth about the donation should be established once and for all.

► TWO, if it is true, as suggested by the BBC story that the donation was to help Najib and the Barisan Nasional to win the 13th General Election in May 2013, it raises a serious ethical question.

How can the leader of a foreign nation – which incidentally does not hold elections – seek to determine the outcome of an election in our country through the use of money?

Wouldn't that be a violation of election rules? Would that be a corrupt act implicating both the giver and the recipient?

How would we have reacted if it was known that the president of Indonesia or the prime minister of Singapore had through secret donations, attempted to determine election results in Malaysia?

► THREE, if a small portion – US$61 million – of the donation was used for various purposes, who were the beneficiaries? Presumably, the BN election machinery was one of them.

Was there a proper accounting of electoral expenditure, as required by electoral law? Since it is the prime minister of a nation that claims to practise accountability that was the recipient of the donation, shouldn't there be a proper explanation of how the money was spent?

► FOUR, since the AG claims that US$620 million was returned to the sender in August 2013, one wonders why when it became public knowledge that there was a huge sum of money in the prime minister's personal bank account in July 2015, there was no attempt by Najib or anyone around him to inform the people that most of the money had been returned to the sender? It would have been in Najib's interest to do so which is why his silence for the last six months is puzzling.

► FIVE, if it is true that US$620 million was returned to the Saudi monarch in August 2013, was Bank Negara aware of it? When such a huge sum of money exits our banking system, wouldn't it have alerted our central bank? What was Bank Negara's response?

► SIX, there is also the allegation that the money that was purportedly returned was actually kept frozen in a Singapore bank account. Was it unfrozen and sent back to the Saudi ruler? What is the role of the Singapore authorities in all this?

► SEVEN, the AG in his statement failed to address yet another similar issue. It is alleged that the money that actually flowed into Najib's account was through an anonymous British Virgin Islands company and a Swiss private bank owned by an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund. Is this true? The people have a right to know.

It is because the questions which trouble Malaysians about the money in the prime minister's bank account are so fundamental that an evaluation by the PPO of the attorney-general's decision is so important. If these questions are answered in an honest and truthful manner, public trust in the prime minister and the government would be restored to a considerable extent.

Honest answers would also convince Malaysians and the world that the Najib government is sincere about upholding integrity. We have seen how in the Berlin based Corruption Perception Index (CPI) for 2015 announced on Jan 27, 2016, Malaysia's ranking has dropped from 50 to 54 out of 168 countries. Controversies related to the prime minister have been cited as among the reasons.

This is why it is in the interest of all Malaysians to support a thorough evaluation of the AG's decision. It is wrong to argue that his decision is beyond scrutiny. In a democracy that values good governance, the decisions and actions of an officer of the state entrusted with the protection of the rule of law and the preservation of justice should never be shielded from evaluation and appraisal by the citizenry.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar
Chairman
Board of Trustees
Yayasan 1Malaysia


Read in full here.

and another one from TMI:

Can A-G’s prosecution power be challenged?

BY GURDIAL SINGH NIJAR

The controversy continues unabated. It is about the attorney-general’s directive to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to close investigations into the 1Malaysia Devleopment Berhad (1MDB) affair.

Perhaps adding fuel to the fire is the rather abrupt “retirement” of former attorney-general Tan Sri Gani Patail on health grounds while these investigations were initially proceeding (he has since gone on to work for a law firm); and his replacement with the present A-G.

The latest volley in the barrage of citizens’ demand for reasons and accountability for the decision was carried in the Sun by Yayasan 1Malaysia Chairman Dr Chandra Muzaffar, “7 reasons to evaluate AG’s decision” on January 29, 2016.

‘That is why it is in the interest of all Malaysians to support a thorough evaluation of the AG’s decision. It is wrong to argue that his decision is beyond scrutiny.”

That is the question – is his decision beyond scrutiny?

The simple answer is no. The power given to him by the Federal Constitution to institute any proceedings for an offence is “exercisable at his discretion”. This power is not absolute.

As long ago as 1979, the then chief justice, Sultan Azlan Shah declared in a landmark case that it is wrong to speak of absolute discretion. This is what he said in his usual pithy style:

“Unfettered discretion is a contradiction in terms. Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship. In particular, it is a stringent requirement that a discretion should be exercised for a proper purpose, and that it should not be exercised unreasonably.

“In other words, every discretion cannot be free from legal restraint; where it is wrongly exercised, it becomes the duty of the courts to intervene.”

His Lordship was speaking of the discretion exercised by a land office.

Is it any different with the discretion exercised by the high constitutional office of an A-G?

Well it could be said there is a greater need for this to apply to the A-G’s exercise of discretion. Because outside of his constitutionally prescribed duties, the AG is the guardian of the public interest, a right conferred on him under the common law, which is made applicable by Article 160 of the constitution.

Indeed then Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim countenanced a remedy against the decision of an A-G not to prosecute – although he said “but not in the courts”.

The Privy Council, the then highest court for Malaysia, alluded to the many factors which a prosecuting authority may properly take into account in exercising its discretion whether to charge a person at all.

It remarked that this “should not be dictated by some irrelevant consideration”.

To summarise: the A-G’s discretion not to prosecute (or any other power that he is entitled to exercise) is not without limits. It cannot be exercised for an improper purpose and unreasonably; or on the basis of an irrelevant or wrong consideration.

If it is so exercised then it could be subject to challenge through the courts.

In fairness to the A-G, he has invited anyone unhappy with his decision to have the limits of his powers determined by the Federal Court.

For this to be properly determined the A-G should give his reasons. Only then can the court properly evaluate the legal propriety of his decision.

In a landmark English case routinely cited in our courts, the House of Lords said that the minister may have good reasons for refusing an investigation.

In this present case, the A-G directed that investigations be stopped although the MACC had asked him to initiate the process for witnesses to be examined.

There was then a duty to give the reasons for the court’s examination. Else it could be assumed there were no good reasons.

Indeed in another English case it was pointed out that if all prima facie reasons point towards one course of action and the minister takes another without giving a reason, the court may infer he has no good reason for the decision and is using his discretion for an improper purpose.

Admittedly these cases involve the exercise of power by a minister in the exercise of administrative functions – as distinct from constitutional powers.

But surely it cannot be denied that public confidence in a prosecutor’s work is the cornerstone of a proper, efficient and fair administration of the justice system. so these decisions should apply with equal – if not more – force to the A-G’s powers.

Finally, let’s take a page from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which the government is eager to sign and ratify.

It requires each party to adopt or maintain “measures to promote transparency in the behaviour of public officials in the exercise of public functions”.

Although this provision relates only to international trade and investment matters, should not this be extended to matters over which there seems to be so much disquiet, if not outrage, among the citizenry. – January 29, 2016.

This thinghy that just refuses to go away

Breaking news from Reuters:

Malaysia's top lawyer rejected advice to charge PM - source

excerpts from Reuters:

"A source at the MACC told Reuters that, when it handed its findings to the attorney-general last month, the agency had recommended that Najib be charged with criminal misappropriation. The source did not specify the grounds or the legal basis for the MACC's recommendation.

"It's a pretty straightforward case. We had made recommendations for charges to be filed that the attorney-general has instead chosen to reject," said the source, who declined to be identified or to elaborate on the MACC's findings.

The attorney-general's office declined to comment. Najib's office said it had no immediate comment.

The MACC said it would not comment on whether it made any recommendation to charge the prime minister.

In a statement on Wednesday, the agency said it would seek a review of the attorney general's decision to close the investigations, but declined to make any further public comment on his findings"

Read full news here and here. I think the AG Apandi Ali will have to deal with the fireworks for some time to come. Good Luck to you Tan Sri sir.

Meanwhile, a former AG Tan Sri Abu Talib also chipped in:

Apandi can’t close investigations, should help MACC, 

says former A-G

excerpts from TMI:

Attorney-General (A-G) Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali has no authority to order the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to close investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation in the prime minister's bank accounts, says a former A-G.

Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman also said that Apandi had not helped MACC to obtain documents and statements from abroad as part of its probe, under the mutual legal assistance (MLA) initiative.

"Under Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution, the A-G has power only to institute, conduct and discontinue any (criminal) proceedings, but has no authority to order any investigation agency to close its investigation papers."

"This is a case of public importance that has attracted worldwide attention, the A-G must help the MACC to collect evidence as the source of the fund is outside Malaysia,"

Read the news in full here.

And this are many questions from Dr. Dzul of PAN, questions the ordinary people would like to ask but too nice to ask:

AG has made it worse for Najib

by Dzulkefly Ahmad

So the Attorney-General thinks he has finally buried the controversy over the RM2.6 billion donation given to Prime Minister Najib Razak. On the contrary, he has immortalised the acrimony till Doomsday.

It is now impossible for the PM to regain the trust he has lost. Indeed, it is likely that he’ll even lose whatever trust he has left, if there’s any by now.

The announcements Apandi Ali made at Tuesday’s press conference have left the nation gasping in disbelief. The latest revelation of an admission by an unnamed Saudi source that his country indeed donated the RM2.6 billion to Najib is nothing short of bewildering. The late King Abdullah must have turned in his grave.

The rakyat must find it atrocious to hear that the money was to be used in efforts to counter the potential of Muslim Brotherhood influence in Malaysia and to help the PM win the 2013 polls.

So we are to believe that the nation is under the hegemonic influence not only of the United States, Europe and China, but also of a nation advocating a brand of Islam called Wahhabism, which is quite at variance with the brand of Islam championed by the Malaysian government, Jakim and other agencies in the country. What a mind-blowing thought!

For the rakyat to buy into all the ‘fairy tales’, let the AG and the government disclose everything that needs to be disclosed. Perchance, the issue can then be laid to rest.

The AG must disclose the findings of the investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation as well as of the probe into the Finance Ministry-owned SRC International.

To recap, the Saudi donation was transferred in 2013, whereas the RM42 million from SRC International was channelled into Najib’s accounts in late 2014 and early 2015. Note the time gap between the transactions.

Although SRC International’s RM42 million was transferred into Najib’s personal bank accounts, the AG said that the PM had no knowledge of it and that he was not informed that the sum originated from the former 1MDB subsidiary.

The bone of contention now becomes: who in SRC authorised the transfer? Did SRC have details of Najib’s personal accounts? Who provided those details to the company? The rakyat could very well say it must be Najib or his wife. It is only logical. Do you ever share your personal account with anyone else, except perhaps your wife? How could he be conveniently oblivious and yet grinning? Isn’t all this a blatant lie, to put appropriately?

How could the rakyat reconcile with the fact that the same benefactor who donated money to Najib just before the 2013 general election decided to donate to him again a year later, this time through his SRC account? Was it because Najib was generous enough to return RM2.03 billion from the first donation?

Have we indeed been told everything? Will anyone have to concoct anything else after this? The question that begs an immediate answer would be: if it was so clear and simple, why didn’t Najib tell us all this before? Did he premeditate this decision to agonise the entire nation?

Yes, he has turned to be the greatest destroyer of our nation’s integrity. Why has it taken so long to have this story disclosed and is he sure that there isn’t anything else left to be told or to be thought of later?

Please, Mr AG, don’t hide behind “confidentiality” any more if you want your verdict of “no criminal wrongdoing” to be truly understood.

Just because Najib has returned RM2.03 billion to the Saudi donor, you can’t expect the rakyat to accept that the case is closed.

Why did Bank Negara have to slap AmBank Islamic with a hefty fine of RM53.7 million? You haven’t told us anything about this.

Does it have anything to do with Najib’s personal accounts and is it related to all these donations and benevolent transfers?

Finally, what were the many recommendations made by MACC after it completed its investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation and related probe into SRC International?

The fact that MACC is now seeking a review of the AG’s decision speaks volumes of the resentment felt by its officials.

Should they possess the power to prosecute, we could guess the verdict they would have handed down.

Both the MACC and the Bank Negara, as well as the entire rakyat, want the issue to be put to rest forever, so that we all can move on to rebuild this beleaguered and very embattled nation.

But this “straightforward case”, as alleged by the AG, has been ironically immortalised till kingdom come.

Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad is Strategic Director for Parti Amanah Negara.

and I think maybe all is not lost:

'SPRM boleh cabar Apandi di mahkamah'

excerpts:

"Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) boleh mencabar keputusan Peguam Negara (AG), Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, jika didasarkan kepada satu keputusan mahkamah tahun lalu, kata Penyelaras perundangan Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), Michelle Yesudas.

Menurut Yesudas, keputusan mahkamah tahun lalu itu, mempertikaikan bagaimana mutlaknya kuasa AG.

Dalam satu kes baru-baru ini, katanya, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Vazeer Alam memutuskan bahawa keputusan AG boleh dicabar jika ia berdasarkan kepada satu pertimbangan yang tidak relevan, menyalahi undang-undang, atau jika berlaku salah guna kuasa.

Yesudas memetik keputusan Hakim Vazeer di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur itu, ketika menolak permohonan bekas Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail untuk membatalkan saman terhadapnya oleh bekas Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersial, Datuk Ramli Yusuff dan peguamnya Rosli Dahlan."

Read more here.

Well like I said, this thinghy just refuses to go away.

AG Shocker (Continued)

Susulan dari AG Shocker semalam.

Lawyer Ambiga's reaction:

Ambiga: 

AG’s explanation on RM2.6b 

doesn’t make sense, 

tell us more

TS Rafidah pun tak berapa happy dengan keputusan AG:

Rafidah: Absolving Najib may allow others with ‘dubious intent’ to avoid legal action

Then dapat berita dari BBC:

Saudi gift to Malaysia PM Najib Razak 'for election campaign'

I was a bit disappointed with the report though as the BBC only said they obtained the information from a 'Saudi Source' this meant that the source cannot be verified and is  just 'khabar angin' or unsubstantiated rumors. More so when the source was quoted to say 'the donation was made amid concern in Riyadh about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood'. Muslim Brotherhood? Those brothers have never had any real presence in Malaysia lah kawan. I think our Special Branch would have rounded these people up as soon as they landed in the KLIA airport anyway. Tak payah bagi derma pun.

Some of the Pronajib bloggers did went to town with the BBC story, but I am sure they'll recover from their festivivities soon.

Ok now read this:

Malaysia Prosecutor Says Saudis Made Legal 

'Donation' to Leader

The headline is a bit off because in it Dow Jones Business News reported:

'A Saudi government official, while declining to comment specifically on the prosecutor's statement, said the Saudi ministries of foreign affairs and finance had no information about such a gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented. Representatives of the royal family couldn't be reached for comment. Critics of the Malaysian prime minister said it was implausible the money had come as a personal donation.'

Note that the Dow Jones Business News used the word Saudi Government Official instead of the BBC's "Saudi Source". Now it goes on to say that the Saudi Government had NO information of such gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented. Never been done lah maknanya tu.

Anyway I did ask yesterday when SPRM and Dr Mahathir will respond....be enlightened friends:

MACC likely to appeal A-G's decision

QUO VADIS MALAYSIA

Najib says AG cleared me, now lets move on. Well sir it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

MACC to refer A-G's decision to close SRC, RM2.6bil case to special oversight panel

AG Shocker?

AG's clearance of Najib on RM2.6b shocks Azmin

A shocker?

AG's full press statement on dropping charges against PM Najib Razak: https://t.co/MLrkzy3bxg pic.twitter.com/T5fCeDWRm9

— malaysiakini.com (@malaysiakini) January 26, 2016

saya rasa ramai kita mau dengar komen atau statement dari SPRM mengenai keputusan AG yg terkini.

— eddydaud. (@eddydaud) January 26, 2016

well AG decision on najib investigation is his alone and thats that. if we don't agree, lets tell BN in PRU14.

— eddydaud. (@eddydaud) January 26, 2016

....well not really a shocker....actually Dr Mahathir had predicted it to happen in early January, and he was sadly right:

Dr Mahathir predicts A-G will ignore MACC findings on RM2.6 billion

My friend @ckliio9 gave his observation on twitter and he is correct in that AG should give more explanation to his decision:

I have nothing against the PM being absolved; I just feel that the AG should explain the process by which they took in the absolution.

— I/O (@ckliio9) January 26, 2016

....without proper explanation quoting why the various penal codes cannot be applied to the SPRM investigation...the AG decision will not put to rest the issue as it will be used as cannon fodder by the Pakatan and Pas people to whack BN in PRU14. 

Remember BN lost the popular votes in PRU13 and today BN have lost more votes in PRU14. How many votes need to be lost before BN realised the tsunami coming their way in PRU14 is lots bigger than the tsunami in PRU13?

The answer to blatant racism in our school system is a 'Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua' system, not sweeping under the carpet

The incident at SJKC Pai Chee Mersing had elicited different reactions from different parties:

Lets hear from Professor Ridhuan Tee first:

Sekolah mana lebih rasis?
INSIDEN seorang guru Melayu, yang bertugas di sebuah SJKC di Mersing, yang ‘diserang’ oleh bapa murid ultra kiasu patut membuka mata semua. Walaupun insiden ini dikatakan bukan isu perkauman, sorotan ceritanya tidak menampakkan sedemikian. Kasihan guru Melayu tersebut. Bayangkan jika guru Cina diperlakukan sedemikian di sekolah kebangsaan.

Bila kena pada kita, cepat-cepat kata itu bukan isu perkauman, minta disenyapkan. Namun, bila kena pada mereka, kata kita rasis belaka, diulang-ulang sentiasa dalam akhbar mereka. Seolah-olah kitalah paling rasis.  

Apakah ia tidak rasis, apabila guru besar ultra kiasu tersebut meminta guru berkenaan meletakkan jawatan dan meminta Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah supaya memindahkan guru berbangsa Melayu daripada berada di sana. Alasannya, guru Melayu tidak layak mengajar di sekolah Cina. Tidak kompeten, malas dan tidak memberi kerjasama.

Saya tidak menuduh semua SJKC sebegitu, tetapi bagi sesiapa yang mengkaji dan mengikut perkembangan SJKC, persepsi sebegini memang suatu yang lumrah dalam kalangan mereka yang ultra kiasu.

Saya amat mengharapkan Kementerian Pendidikan (KPM) supaya bertegas. Jangan berpolitik lagi kerana undi. Pertama, keadaan ini akan meracuni pemikiran murid menjadi rasis. Guru Melayu yang ditindas sepatutnya dikekalkan, bukan ditukar.

Kedua, kembalikan semula sekolah bantuan modal seperti dahulu. Setakat ini, kerajaan memberi layanan yang sama kepada semua sekolah walaupun tidak mendaulatkan agenda kebangsaan. Nasib Sekolah Agama Rakyat pula tidak menentu.  

Ketiga, pengecualian GST terhadap empat buah Sekolah Persendirian Cina baru-baru ini, hendaklah difikirkan semula. Percayalah. Berilah sebanyak mana pun kemudahan, undi mereka tetap kepada ultra kiasu. Jangan haraplah mereka akan mengundi BN.

Keempat, kerajaan tidak boleh lagi tunduk kepada tekanan parti politik dan NGO ultra kiasu. Sepatutnya, ultra kiasu yang tunduk kepada syarat kerajaan. Misalnya, guru bukan Cina yang mengajar di SJKC mesti boleh berbahasa Cina dan mendapat kredit dalam mata pelajaran tersebut di peringkat SPM.

Mata pelajaran Sejarah yang pada awal arahan kementerian diajar dalam bahasa Melayu, akhirnya terpaksa tunduk diajar dalam bahasa ibunda. Itu pun mereka tidak puas hati. Mereka telah hantar memorandum supaya kerajaan mengubah silibus Sejarah tersebut, kerana terlalu bersifat ‘kemelayuan’ apabila menceritakan tentang sejarah kemerdekaan. Hampir 100 ‘kesalahan’ dikenal pasti. Mereka juga mahukan pemimpin mereka turut diiktiraf sebagai pejuang kemerdekaan. Siapakah yang paling ramai terkorban menentang British? Apakah komunis itu pejuang kemerdekaan?

Kelima, dalam memperkasakan agenda negara, pendidikan adalah asas. Kerajaan mesti bertegas, seperti yang pernah dilakukan oleh Kerajaan Thailand dan Indonesia demi pembangunan negara bangsa. Hanya ada sekolah satu sistem.

SJKC yang dibina dan dibantu oleh kerajaan sepenuhnya hendaklah ditukar statusnya menjadi Sekolah Wawasan. Benar, buat masa ini Sekolah Wawasan yang menempatkan semua sekolah di bawah satu bumbung, tidak mendapat sambutan ultra kiasu. Atas alasan, jika banyak bercampur dengan Melayu, maka hilanglah penguasaan bahasa Cina mereka.

Keenam, pembinaan sekolah vernakular yang sentiasa bertambah dari setahun ke setahun perlu difikirkan semula. SJKC yang muridnya kurang dari 100 hendaklah ditutup.

Ketujuh, kelas peralihan yang wujud sehingga ke hari ini hendaklah dihapuskan. Mereka yang gagal BM hendaklah dihantar ke kem pemulihan bahasa selama dua tahun. DBP boleh diamanahkan tugas tersebut.

Kelapan, sijil UEC tidak boleh diiktiraf selagi kurikulumnya tidak mematuhi kehendak KPM.  

Kesembilan, jangan biarkan Pakatan Harapan menang dalam PRU yang akan datang kerana lubuk ultra kiasu adalah di sana. Jika mereka menang, semua yang dibincangkan di atas akan terkubur.  

Kesepuluh, siasatan juga hendaklah dibuat di SJKC yang lain. Tempatkan lebih ramai guru-guru Melayu di sana, supaya anak-anak mereka dapat dibimbing?

Kesebelas, jika sekolah kebangsaan boleh menerima guru besar (pengetua) bukan Melayu, kenapa SJKC tidak boleh menerima guru besar Melayu? Sekolah mana lebih rasis?

Akhirnya, sedarkan rakan sebangsaku, bahawa kerajaan (orang Melayu) sudah terlalu banyak bertoleransi kepada sekolah vernakular yang tidak pernah ada dalam dunia ini kecuali Malaysia. Masih tidak cukupkah lagi? Belajarlah bersyukur.

* Prof Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, Felo Utama, INSPIRE dan pensyarah PPI, UniSZA

The DAP together with the rest of the Chinese Educationists and Vernacular Newspapers, as usual think that the SJKC Pai Chee incident is just an isolated case:


Jangan kritik sekolah aliran Cina kerana insiden terpencil

...knowing full well that incidents such as these could have the potential to blow this country apart. 

I think the only way to stop racism in our schools is to have a Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua system not the cacamerba system that we have now, where anything goes. 

We need this Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua system now...lets join the rest of the world in having a One School For All System where our kids and teachers study and teach together. The longer the powers that be delay this system the worse will the racism be and watch my words it will overflow from the schools to everyday life.

Note: Sekolah vernakular tidak ada peruntukan didalam Pelembagaan Malaysia.

Kepada YB Ahli-Ahli Parimen BN, Pakatan Harapan dan PAS

Harap YB-YB dapat baca dengan minda terbuka..especially YB-YB dari BN..Terima Kasih ye:

Surat terbuka kepada ahli Parlimen, #BantahTPPA – Syahir Sulaiman

Dengan penuh takzim kepada sekalian yang berhormat ahli Parlimen yang bertanggungjawab ke atas kepentingan negara tercinta, saya mengutus surat ini mengenai suatu isu kritikal yang menjadi dilema negara kita sekarang, dan bakal tercatit sebagai noktah penting dalam sejarah negara untuk dikenang generasi akan datang.

TPPA, Perjanjian bebas yang mengikat

Sebagaimana semua sedia maklum, Malaysia bakal menandatangani Perjanjian Perkongsian Trans-Pasifik (TPPA) pada bulan Februari 2016, sekiranya diluluskan Dewan yang serba mulia dalam perbahasan selama 3 hari yang sangat singkat kelak.

 Rundingan TPPA selama 5 tahun tersebut dimuktamadkan pada 5 Oktober 2015, dan akan diikuti tempoh ratifikasi selama 2 tahun untuk kita meminda undang-undang dalam negara -  lebih 27 akta dan beberapa pekeliling dan aturan Kerajaan - bagi mematuhi peraturan yang terkandung dalam TPPA, seterusnya memberi laluan kepada penguatkuasaan TPPA kepada negara anggota selewatnya pada 2018.

Penyertaan Malaysia di dalam TPPA akan meletakkan Malaysia di dalam kelab 12 buah negara di rantau Lautan Pasifik, iaitu Amerika Syarikat, Australia, Brunei, Kanada, Chile, Jepun, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapura, dan Vietnam yang bakal muncul sebagai sebuah blok ekonomi terpenting di dunia, bagi menyaingi kebangkitan gergasi ekonomi dunia yang baharu, iaitu Brazil, Rusia, India dan China (BRIC).

Tiadalah salah untuk Malaysia menjalin hubungan dagang dengan dunia luar, namun apa yang menjadikan TPPA begitu kontroversi adalah kerana skop perjanjiannya yang lebih komprehensif dan meluas, meliputi aspek harta intelek, tender kerajaan, syarikat berkaitan kerajaan, buruh, dan alam sekitar, berbanding skop ekonomi dan pelaburan yang terkandung dalam FTA biasa.

Secara keseluruhan, TPPA merangkumi 30 bab meliputi bidang tradisional dan bidang baharu.

Ia mengandungi 6,350 muka surat - 595 halaman teks perjanjian, 5,755 halaman lampiran (annexes) berkaitan akses pasaran, syarikat milik kerajaan dan peraturan tempat asal, serta 20 surat sampingan (side letters) yang dipersetujui secara 2 hala mengenai isu spesifik.

Hujah dibalas hujah

Saya mengucapkan tahniah sekiranya yang berhormat berkesempatan untuk mentelaah setiap 6,350 halaman perjanjian tersebut, kerana kami rakyat marhaen di luar ini bukan sahaja tidak berkesempatan, malah tidak berkeupayaan untuk memahami setiap terma yang digunakan dalam perjanjian yang serba mengikat ini.

Dalam memperhalusi kesan perjanjian yang serba mengikat ini, kerajaan hanya melantik konsultan untuk menjalankan kajian impak TPPA selepas rundingan dimuktamadkan pada 5 Oktober 2015, dalam keadaan tiada lagi pindaan yang dibenarkan pada teks perjanjian tersebut.

Sewajarnya kerajaan menjalankan kajian sebelum rundingan ditamatkan, tetapi ternyata kita memilih jalan sebaliknya.

Kerajaan melantik sebuah firma audit antarabangsa, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) yang mengambil masa tidak sampai 2 bulan untuk menjalankan kajian kos dan manfaat (Cost & Benefit Analysis) terhadap negara, dan merumuskan bahawa penyertaan Malaysia dalam TPPA akan membawa manfaat kepada ekonomi dengan peningkatan dalam pertumbuhan KDNK, pertambahan pelaburan serta import dan eksport.

Manakala sebuah badan pemikir tempatan, Institut Kajian Strategik dan Antarabangsa (ISIS) mengambil masa sebulan untuk menyiapkan analisa kepentingan negara (National Interest Analysis), dan menyimpulkan TPPA akan memberi kesan positif kepada kepentingan dan kedaulatan negara.

Malah kerajaan turut menangkis segala tohmahan yang menyatakan TPPA akan menggugat agama Islam, perlembagaan, bumiputera, keselamatan makanan, hak cipta, dan ubat-ubatan.

Di pihak kerajaan pula, siri taklimat dan penerangan tentang TPPA giat dijalankan ke seluruh negara.

Rakyat diberikan jaminan TPPA ini serba indah dan Malaysia bakal ditimpa malang sekiranya tidak menandatangani TPPA sekarang, sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam sesi taklimat Perjanjian Perkongsian Trans-Pasifik (TPPA) bersama ahli Parlimen bertarikh 12 Januari dan dokumen jawapan kepada kebimbangan, salah faham dan tuduhan bertarikh 11 Januari.

Tiga hujah yang dikemukakan kerajaan untuk menyokong penyertaan Malaysia ke dalam TPPA, dan wajar dinilai yang berhormat, antaranya:

Peningkatan pelaburan yang menyumbang kepada pewujudan peluang pekerjaan

Menurut simulasi yang dijalankan PWC, kesan TPPA kepada pertumbuhan ekonomi Malaysia tidaklah terlalu besar – hanya menyumbang kenaikan 1.1% KDNK dan kenaikan 0.9% eksport negara pada 2027, satu lonjakan yang sangat rendah dan tidak signifikan kepada ekonomi negara yang berkembang pada kadar 4% - 6% setahun.

Model ekonomi CGE yang digunakan PWC mengunjurkan GDP akan meningkat sebanyak ASD107-211 bilion dalam tempoh 10 tahun sekiranya Malaysia menyertai TPPA, atau hanya ASD10 bilion setahun (RM40 bilion).

Namun, jika andaian model CGE tersebut direndahkan daripada ‘baseline GDP growth’ 5.0% kepada 4.0% sebagaimana negara maju yang lain, peningkatan GDP Malaysia hanyalah pada kadar ASD85-168 bilion, atau hanya ASD8 bilion setahun.

Akses pasaran ke negara ahli TPPA yang Malaysia belum ada FTA, iaitu Amerika Syarikat, Kanada, Mexico dan Peru

Hakikatnya, sebagaimana dilaporkan kajian PWC, jumlah dagangan Malaysia ke Amerika Syarikat mencecah RM116 bilion dan dijangka terus meningkat, walaupun tanpa TPPA, bermakna lonjakan yang bakal diterima Malaysia adalah sangat minima.

Malah, kajian PWC turut mengunjurkan nilai imbangan dagangan yang lebih rendah sekiranya Malaysia menyertai TPPA, pada kadar USD29.7 bilion berbanding USD42.3 bilion sekiranya tidak menyertai TPPA.

Integrasi lebih menyeluruh dalam rantaian bekalan di peringkat serantau dan global bagi perusahaan kecil dan sederhana (PKS)

Selain TPPA, Malaysia sedang dalam proses rundingan 4 FTA yang lebih meluas di peringkat serantau dan global, iaitu Perkongsian Ekonomi Komprehensif Serantau (RCEP) melibatkan semua 10 negara ASEAN dan 6 rakan FTA ASEAN iaitu China, India, Jepun, Korea Selatan, New Zealand dan Australia; Malaysia-EU melibatkan  Malaysia dan Kesatuan Eropah yang terdiri daripada 27 buah negara; Perjanjian Perkongsian Ekonomi Malaysia - EFTA (MEEPA) di antara Malaysia dan European Free Trade Association yang terdiri daripada Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway dan Switzerland; dan ASEAN-Hong Kong melibatkan semua 10 negara ASEAN dan Hong Kong.

Selain itu, 3 hujah dikemukakan kerajaan berkenaan kesan buruk sekiranya Malaysia tidak menyertai TPPA, dan wajar dibahas yang berhormat, antaranya:

Malaysia akan kurang daya tarikan sebagai destinasi pelaburan bagi pelabur yang mengeksport produk dan perkhidmatan ke pasaran TPPA.

Realitinya, faktor utama yang menjadi daya tarikan sesebuah negara untuk menjadi destinasi pilihan pelabur adalah kestabilan politik, iklim pelaburan yang kondusif, dan kualiti modal insan tempatan, di samping karenah birokrasi dan amalan rasuah yang rendah.

Antara indeks antarabangsa yang mengukur tahap daya saing negara adalah “World Competitiveness Ranking (IMD)”, “Ease of Doing Business (World Bank)”, dan “Corruption Index (Transparency International)”.

Syarikat tempatan dan asing yang kini beroperasi di Malaysia mungkin akan mengecilkan skala operasinya.

Kajian PWC mendapati 3 sektor yang bakal mendapat manfaat adalah perniagaan yang berorientasikan eksport seperti tekstil, komponen automotif, dan elektrikal & elektronik (dikuasai firma Amerika Syarikat dan Eropah).

Manakala 3 sektor yang bakal mendapat kesan negatif adalah industri yang menghadapi persaingan yang lebih sengit pasca-TPPA seperti minyak & gas, minyak sawit, dan pembinaan, di mana sektor ini merupakan penyumbang utama kepada ekonomi negara dan dikuasai syarikat tempatan.

Malaysia akan berdepan dengan persaingan lebih sengit dari Vietnam dan Singapura dalam menarik pelaburan asing.

Dan sekiranya Indonesia, Thailand dan Filipina memilih untuk menyertai TPPA kemudian hari, Malaysia akan ketinggalan lebih jauh.

Elemen tariff dan duti hanyalah faktor sampingan yang menjadi pertimbangan pelabur, bukannya faktor penentu sebagaimana faktor kestabilan politik dan transparensi dalam pasaran tempatan. 

Hakikat globalisasi dan penjajahan moden

Menurut Syeikh Prof. Dr.Yusuf al-Qardhawi, pengertian globalisasi (al-‘Awlamah) hampir sama dengan nilai kesejagatan (al-‘Alamiyyah) yang dibawa Islam.

Namun, menurut Syeikh al-Qardhawi, globalisasi dalam gambaran yang sangat ketara pada hari ini bererti membaratkan dunia (Westernisation) atau mengAmerikakan dunia (Americanisation), dengan tujuan untuk menguasai dunia di bawah satu ungkapan yang lunak iaitu globalisasi bagi menjayakan agenda pemaksaan pengaruh Amerika dan Eropah ke seluruh dunia.

Untuk makluman yang berhormat, perbahasan mengenai sikap dan pendirian Islam terhadap globalisasi moden ini dikupas dengan teliti Dato’ Seri Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang (TGHA) di dalam kertas kerja beliau yang yang diterjemahkan daripada Bahasa Arab berjudul "Globalisasi: Pendirian Islam Mengenainya", dibentangkan sempena Kolokium Antarabangsa Penyatuan Umat Sedunia di Tehran (Urusetia Penerangan Negeri Terengganu, 2003).

Di dalam kertas kerja tersebut, beliau menggariskan bentuk dan pendekatan globalisasi di zaman moden ini, seterusnya mengemukakan tindakan dan strategi yang perlu diambil dunia Islam, dengan mengambil pandangan tokoh ilmuan Islam kontemporari, termasuklah Syeikh Prof Dr.Yusuf al-Qardhawi, Prof Dr. Najmuddin Erbakan, Syeikh Dr Fathi Yakan, dan Syeikh Mohammad Hussin Fadlullah.

Antara sikap yang perlu diambil Malaysia dalam menghadapi cabaran globalisasi ala-Barat dan ala-Amerika ini adalah membebaskan diri daripada penjajahan pemikiran sekular agar dapat kembali kepada agama pemahaman dan pelaksanaan Islam yang sempurna, serta mengurangkan pergantungan kepada Amerika dengan meningkatkan kerjasama sesama negara umat Islam dan negara serantau.

Sewajarnya yang berhormat menyarankan agar kepentingan Malaysia dilindungi secara bermasyarakat madani di kalangan negara serantau (ASEAN), negara satu umat dan seagama (OIC) dan juga satu kemanusiaan (NAM) dengan adil dan saksama,  serta membebaskan Malaysia daripada bergantung dengan dolar Amerika kepada dinar atau mata wang Asia, tanpa bermusuh dengan sesiapa dan tidak berpihak kepada sesiapa.

Berdasarkan pertimbangan di atas, jelas menunjukkan tiada keperluan untuk Malaysia terikat dengan perjanjian TPPA yang tidak menjamin kesejahteraan hidup rakyat, dan tidak membawa manfaat yang besar kepada ekonomi negara, berbanding risiko dan kerugian yang tidak dapat dipastikan.

Mungkin yang berhormat fikir saya ini seorang pesimis. Sebenarnya saya sangat optimis dan yakin akan kemampuan kita sendiri, khususnya kebolehan yang ada di kalangan generasi muda, yang akan mewarisi negara tercinta ini dan memimpinnya ke persada antarabangsa. – 21 Januari, 2016.

* Syahir Sulaiman ialah Pengarah Strategi Dewan Pemuda PAS Malaysia (DPPM)

BANTAH TPPA, JANGAN JUAL NEGARA

BANTAH TPPA, JANGAN JUAL NEGARA

Post-TPP 26 state, federal laws will be amended, 

says Mustapa 

Baca ni pula, ditulis oleh Dr. M:
THE TPP
20 Jan 2016 | Economics

1. The International Trade and Industry (MITI) Minister says it will take two years to amend 26 laws to meet TPP requirements.

2. This is a clear admission that the TPP limits Malaysia’s freedom to make laws deemed necessary for the country. These laws have been passed by the Malaysian Parliament apparently because they were considered essential and god for the country. But now they have to be amended because the TPP is apparently more powerful than our elected parliament in determining what laws Malaysia should have.

3. By the same token future laws to be debated in Parliament must be subjected to the requirements or conditions in the TPP. Being right and suitable for Malaysia’s needs is not enough anymore. The needs of TPP will outweigh Malaysia’s needs.

4. Malaysia is not exactly like the other members of the TPP. We have many sensitivities because of our racial mix, our economic disparities, our poverty rates and our low levels of incomes. To correct all the economic, political and social problems certain policies and laws must be put in place. These are meant for overcoming our domestic problems. But these are no longer enough. If they don’t conform to TPP conditions they may not be passed by Parliament. A part of our independent rights will be eroded. The need to amend 26 of our existing laws carries this implication.

5. When those opposed to the TPP claim that the so-called free-trade agreement would undermine our sovereignty, and our freedom to act in our interest, they are dismissed for being emotional. But now it is clear that the TPP will stand in the way of our legislative rights, a fundamental freedom of a sovereign country.

6. Our founding fathers fought hard to gain independence; to be masters of our own affairs and destiny and now we are going sign away our rights and our freedom because of the need to obey the dictates of TPPA.

7. I have no doubt the rubber-stamp parliament will approve the TPP. That in itself is evidence that we are preparing to submit to foreign forces and give up the Merdeka that our former leaders had fought so hard for.

8. Truly cash is king.

VERSI BM

TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

1. Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri (MITI) berkata ia akan mengambil masa dua tahun untuk meminda 26 undang-undang untuk memenuhi keperluan TPP.

2. Ini adalah satu pengakuan yang jelas bahawa TPP menghadkan kebebasan Malaysia untuk menggubal undang-undang yang dianggap perlu untuk negara. Undang-undang ini telah diluluskan oleh Parlimen Malaysia kononnya kerana ianya dianggap penting dan baik untuk negara. Tetapi sekarang ianya perlu dipinda kerana TPP nampaknya lebih berkuasa daripada Parlimen kita yang dipilih rakyat dalam menentukan apa undang-undang Malaysia yang sepatutnya.

3. Atas sebab yang sama undang-undang masa depan yang akan dibahaskan di Parlimen mesti tertakluk kepada kemahuan atau syarat-syarat dalam TPP. Tepat dan sesuai untuk keperluan Malaysia sahaja tidak lagi mencukupi. Keperluan TPP akan melebihi keperluan Malaysia.

4. Malaysia tidak sama seperti anggota-anggota TPP yang lain. Kita mempunyai banyak sensitiviti kerana kepelbagaian kaum, jurang ekonomi, kadar kemiskinan dan tahap pendapatan yang rendah. Untuk membetulkan semua masalah ekonomi, politik dan sosial, dasar dan undang-undang tertentu perlu diadakan. Ini adalah bertujuan untuk mengatasi masalah dalaman kita. Tetapi ini semua adalah tidak lagi mencukupi. Jika ianya tidak mematuhi syarat-syarat TPP ianya mungkin tidak akan diluluskan oleh Parlimen. Sebahagian daripada hak-hak kebebasan kita akan terhakis. Keperluan untuk meminda 26 undang-undang yang sedia ada membawa implikasi ini.

5. Apabila mereka yang menentang TPP mendakwa bahawa perjanjian yang dikenali sebagai perdagangan bebas ini akan melemahkan kedaulatan negara, dan kebebasan kita untuk bertindak demi kepentingan diri sendiri, mereka dihalang kerana dianggap beremosi. Tetapi kini adalah jelas bahawa TPP menghalang perjalanan hak-hak perundangan kita, kebebasan asasi negara yang berdaulat.

6. Bapa-bapa pengasas negara kita berjuang bersungguh-sungguh untuk mendapatkan kemerdekaan, supaya kita menjadi penguasa hal ehwal dan takdir diri sendiri, dan sekarang kita akan melepaskan hak dan kebebasan kita kerana perlu mematuhi telunjuk TPPA.

7. Saya tidak ragu-ragu bahawa Parlimen Pak Turut akan meluluskan TPP. Itu sendiri adalah bukti bahawa kita sedang membuat persiapan untuk menyerah kepada kuasa-kuasa asing dan mengorbankan Merdeka yang pemimpin-pemimpin kita yang dahulu telah berjuang begitu keras untuk mendapatnya.

8. Sesungguhnya wang adalah raja.